June 18, 2013

Says Meade, here, in the discussion of the ugliness of the mockery of the "masturbating fetus," and alluding to Benjamin's predecessor in the role of Surgeon General, Jocelyn Elders, who was fired by Bill Clinton in 1994 for saying that children should be taught that masturbation "is a part of human sexuality, and it's a part of something that perhaps should be taught."

(She meant taught about, but there was much mockery, as people assumed or pretended they believed that she thought that school teachers should be showing children how to do it, as opposed to simply teaching that it's something that many people do, that isn't physically harmful, and that avoids pregnancy and disease.)

State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices.

Imagine a state today attempting to prosecute the crime of masturbation. Of course, the defense would be the right of privacy, and the courts would hear masturbation described in the loftiest terms. It would parallel what we heard — over the past few decades — about homosexuality, which was initially viewed as a lowly or ridiculous matter that didn't belong in the treasured realm of constitutional rights.

Given the importance of privacy rights to the pro-abortion-rights bloggers, I think their laughing at the masturbating fetus shows the poverty of their understanding of the very rights they'd like to pressure others to believe in.

I lay back and closed my eyes. I put the mirror down. I watched myself floating above myself. I watched as I slowly began to approach myself and re-enter. I felt like an astronaut re-entering the surface of the earth. It was very quiet this re-entry, quiet and gentle. I bounced and landed, landed and bounced. I came into my own muscles and blood and cells and then I slid into my vagina. It was suddenly easy and I fit. I was all warm and pulsing and ready and young and alive. And then, without looking, with my eyes still closed, I put my finger on what had suddenly become me.

I don't know why the line between touching one's genitals and masturbation matters here other than that the pro-abortion-rights bloggers thought it was funny to leap to saying that the dumb Republican said that fetuses are masturbating and that's a reason not to destroy them.

It should be mocked because it's inherently a stupid thing to say. However, professor as a matter of function, we know that masturbation in public is illegal. Whether someone sees you doing it or not. Within the confines of your own home is a different story. What if someone sees you masturbating in your home without your knowledge? Or what ever happened to that guy that was busted for indecent exposure in his own home because a mother walking her child happened to see him through the window of his home?

Imagine a state today attempting to prosecute the crime of masturbation. Of course, the defense would be the right of privacy, and the courts would hear masturbation described in the loftiest terms. It would parallel what we heard — over the past few decades — about homosexuality, which was initially viewed as a lowly or ridiculous matter that didn't belong in the treasured realm of constitutional rights.

Yes . . . future generations will look upon these past two or three generations as quite absurdly sex-obsessed.

Take a break and let other people speak. I've had to delete you because you are derailing a conversation that I tried to set up. This is my blog, and I have explicitly said that I want this conversation kept on track.

Jim needs to remind himself that the congressman never said that fetuses masturbate - it was the mockers who said that, as part of their deeply dishonest mockery.

Most of us understand 'masturbation' to mean more than just touching or holding one's gender-specific apparatus for comfort, like Al Bundy with his hands in his pants after a hard day at work. As most of us understand it, masturbation means touching oneself with sufficient enthusiasm and persistence to achieve orgasm. I'm pretty sure unborn babies don't do that (duh!), but if an OB/GYN who is also a congressman says that they do the comfort thing, who am I - and who the Hell are you - to argue?

The congressman's point is quite clear, and fairly devastating. Unborn babies seem to feel, and seek pleasure. That clearly implies - though it doesn't quite prove - that they also feel, and avoid, pain.

Sorry if this is a bit redundant now, and not quite on-point, but it seems important.

'The mockers are taking this delicately stated image of the fetus touching or holding its genitals and turning it into a picture of a baby masturbating — "jerking off," "spanking the monkey" — and asking us to laugh at it, even as we are expected to accept its being killed. '

Sorry. It's not a delicate statement. It's a ludicrous fantasy. Adult males touch their crotches without thinking all the time. Even while sleeping.

We are not laughing at a fetus masturbating at its moment of abortion. We are laughing at a congressman who believes that fetuses pleasure themselves in this way. If you really want to go down this road, thumb-sucking makes a lot more sense, and does indeed happen in utero - babies get a sense of reward from sucking on things, as do all infant mammals. But to imply that either of these is a deliberate decision is simply ignorant of the differences between an adult brain and a prenatal one.

Honestly, the degree to which you are defending him leads me to believe that this is the boldest masterstroke in anti-abortion thought in years - it's not. It's more akin to insisting Katie Couric's "what do you read?" was a devious trap as opposed to the fluffiest softball this side of a second grade PE class.

And before anyone brings it up, I don't particularly care that he's an OB/GYN. I'm a medical student and can assure you that he doesn't have any more knowledge than I do about this proposed behavior. The first person to consult would be an embryologist, and Scalia would be pretty far back in line.

"If you really want to go down this road", you could notice that the congressman did start with a non-genital comparison: "They stroke their face." Jim needs to do his homework.

If he's not lying about being in medical school, he also needs to either (a) develop some empathy before he graduates, or (b) stick to lab work, far away from actual human patients. I suppose he could always become an abortionist.

Regarding Masturbation as legal due to a right to privacy, I don't understand. Am I correct in saying some did not want a bill of rights, because it would exclude other rights?

And isn't that the tenth amendment is all about:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

If not to give power to the states the Federal government has, what's it for?

Isn't that as it should be? The states can experiment all they want, and competition will keep them from making egregious laws. The Federal government is weak and limited to a handful of things, and the states are in control.

To be clear, I'm not arguing masturbation ought to be illegal. I'm merely stating I don't see how the constitution prohibits it.

We are not laughing at a fetus masturbating at its moment of abortion. We are laughing at a congressman who believes that fetuses pleasure themselves in this way. If you really want to go down this road, thumb-sucking makes a lot more sense, and does indeed happen in utero - babies get a sense of reward from sucking on things, as do all infant mammals. But to imply that either of these is a deliberate decision is simply ignorant of the differences between an adult brain and a prenatal one.

I think when you read this it becomes clear Jim never actually read what the congressman said. He's highlighting the difference between masturbation and self-consoling or instinctive exploring and saying anyone conflating the two is an idiot. But he doesn't realize the only the leftist critics he's cheering on have made the error he's criticizing.

Ann Althouse said... Let's try to talk about the subjects raised in the post.

There's only one conclusion to draw from the post. The left's "principles" will be jettisoned when convenient today and re-cited when necessary tomorrow without remorse or acknowledgement of the inconsistency. Anyone who didn't understand this by the time they reached adulthood wasn't paying attention.

Take a break and let other people speak. I've had to delete you because you are derailing a conversation that I tried to set up. This is my blog, and I have explicitly said that I want this conversation kept on track.

Feel free to masturbate.

3 posts, now 4 is derailing and overposting. Got it. I only mentally masturbate, not physically when I already have the necessary seminal outlets.

"Feel free to masturbate", LMAO, that's exactly what I'm going to tell ol' Meth next time he annoys me. That is gold.

As for masturbation by a fetus, please. I'm sure however that a boy fetus' penis being out there floating in amniotic fluid, might be something he gasps and can actually hold briefly, same as a nose, an ear, a thumb can find its way to a mouth. Done often enough in utero it could be a learned activity that could be comforting.

"I'm a medical student and can assure you that he doesn't have any more knowledge than I do about this proposed behavior. The first person to consult would be an embryologist, and Scalia would be pretty far back in line."

Jesus ! I hope you never get near my group. I'd flunk a twerp like you in a minute. So an OB knows no more about fetal life than you do. What an arrogant idiot.

You remind me of a pre-med kid I saw one time with a melanoma on his back. After he saw me in the office, he called to tell me he wanted to be treated "as an officer, not an enlisted man."

I was pleased when he cancelled the surgery and went to Don Morton at UCLA.

I was not pleased but had a certain sense of schadenfreude when I heard had had a recurrence a couple of years later.

If I recall correctly, it was in freshman psychology that they told us male fetuses touch themselves as proof that sexuality is a continually evolving part of the human experience. I was a little surprised at all the chatter about the absurdity of masturbating fetuses because when I was in school (early '90s), it was the conventionally transgressive wisdom that sexuality was an important part of the human experience and that it manifested in different ways through life, even in unborn babies.

It's always sad when it turns out that the crowd that acts like it has profound understanding of deeper things, unlike those knuckle dragging conservatives, reveals an American Pie sensibility, but there you have it. Left, right or center, the one thing you can count on is us becoming unreasoning idiots if we see an opportunity to mock those we disagree with.

A boy fondles his genitals for many, many moons before he discovers the wonders of masturbation. All men fondle their genitals because we aim when we pee. Except in Germany, where I was shocked to see a man urinate with his hands on his hips. "I am king of the mountain!" That's how he peed. I suppose that's why they have a towel girl in bathrooms in Munich. And it's not actually a girl, she's more like 70 and she kinda freaked me out.

It's entirely possible that men excel in math and science because we hold our manhood and piss in a straight line. Yes, that's right, geometry. While women pretty much squat and whiz, or so I've been told. Anyway, that's why math is hard, Barbie. We do it early and often. We do it with urine.

Jim wrote:Uhh, before we get too far into this, can we remind ourselves that fetuses do not actually masturbate, touch themselves for pleasure, or anything along these lines?

Do fetuses touch themselves at all? Surely they aren't conscious of the sexual aspect of their penises, but the point is, they suck their thumb, they smile, they touch between their legs. Do you think they feel positive sensations when doing so? If yes, then the congressmen is right and you are an ass.

And do you really think the congressman was suggesting that babies are actually jerking off?

You will find Darleen hangin out at some nasty bar in the middle of nowhere with a Moore Cig and a Miller Lite seeing what she is worth.

She is totally not cosmo. Completely uneducated. Likely unemployed. She loves family values but for the right loser she may allow her stretched out dry cooch that is responsible for some of the California fires a little action. If you are lucky she will wear a low cut top to show you a little tit to get you oldies horny.

Her clothes are from Marshalls and her hair is from the 80's but she is a feisty gal ready for a rally.

Jim wrote:We are not laughing at a fetus masturbating at its moment of abortion. We are laughing at a congressman who believes that fetuses pleasure themselves in this way. If you really want to go down this road, thumb-sucking makes a lot more sense, and does indeed happen in utero - babies get a sense of reward from sucking on things, as do all infant mammals. But to imply that either of these is a deliberate decision is simply ignorant of the differences between an adult brain and a prenatal one.

If they get a sense of reward from doing somethng, even on a primitive level then why would it be beyond the pale to think that they are doing those things because they bring pleasure. Why would a baby get a sense of reward for sucking on something but not a sense of reward for reaching between his (or her) legs.

If babies do something in the womb because it brings them a sense of reward, then that is a conscious thing. Therefore deliberate, albeit on a primitive level. Otherwise sucking your thumb would be a random actiion and would bring a baby nothing.

That's an interesting theory which could explain the male predisposition to recognizing and exploiting mathematical concepts. Almost as if it were intuitive. Women, on the other hand, seem to be uniquely designed to consider abstract often amorphous concepts.

For Jim's edification - http://health.howstuffworks.com/pregnancy-and-parenting/pregnancy/fetal-development/alertness-in-the-womb.htmBabies in the womb touch themselves all over. And no, it doesn't mean that they are jerking off. They don't understand sex, but are most likely, exploring themsleves and the sensation they have of their body and surroundings. If they would touch their face, why not between their legs?

Newborns also touch their genitals alot. Does this mean they are "masturbating"? The congressmen didn't actually use the word masturbate. People like Jim did.But this leads me to believe that he's not really that familiar with the behavior of fetuses. Maybe HE should be mocked.

Despite evidence for the immunogenicity of human melanoma, previous trials of early vaccine formulations by Morton et al,Livingston et al, have shown no consistent effect on the overall survival of patients receiving postoperative active immunotherapy

You're welcome. I've dealt with cancer for 50 years. I'm still human and to be rejected by a jerk who then fails to have a better outcome does seem to be a bit ironic. I said I wasn't happy about it. I don't think you're a doctor either so we're even.

The argument for a right to privacy is a good one, even though the argument for a right to abortion is more tendentious.

A general phenomenon of concern here is the lack of seriousness in political discourse. I take a pretty cynical view of politics, yet I'm constantly stunned and disgusted by the stupidity of our political culture. So what's a serious-minded person to do?

Generally I want the courts to weigh in favor of seriousness, and protect the rights of the serious person against the whims of the mob. If there's not already a "serious person" standard in jurisprudence, perhaps there should be.

In the case of abortion, this means acknowledging that the right of privacy does in fact limit the government's ability to prohibit or restrict abortion. I don't believe this must be the case, however, because in my view the truth about when life begins isn't as mysterious as the courts have held it to be. Yet I would have to admit that, given the facts the courts have allowed, I would want them to safeguard a woman's right to privacy in this matter.

This limit of government power allows women to obtain abortions even when they agree with abortion opponents that abortion is murder. Is that an abuse of freedom? I don't like that formulation in general because of the implication that one should be mindful of how society or the government wishes you would exercise a freedom; there's always an ugly side to freedom, always a potential for disagreement.

The explanation I prefer is that the right of privacy doesn't allow one to commit murder in privacy, and factually abortion is murder. This opinion is admittedly contentious, but I suggest that with advances in science, it will soon be self-evident. In that situation, should the courts still protect seriously held minority opinions about the nature of life? No, not if it means allowing murder. Under current law you can be a nihilist or completely hostile to all of humanity, but the law still prohibits you from taking another person's life. The courts can't indefinitely dodge this issue of personhood.

The good old Catholic church has messed up more youth over "self abuse" than can be imagined.

If one believes the Man of God theory about priestly celibacy, then it makes some sense.

OTOH, the Church's failure to accept sex for what it is (lots more than merely a reproductive act) has hurt its followers for centuries. Catholics are plenty good a straight old reproduction but the richness and pleasure of this one of God's creations is lost on most Catholics.

Michael K said...Don Morton, who is a good guy, had to retract all his melanoma papers about 20 years ago. His treatment did no good.

If the researcher in question did not in fact have to retract his papers this is slander.

To back up your assertion you then provide a citation which simply demonstrates that the research team in question is having difficulty solving the technical aspects of their proposed therapeutic approach. In the citation provided they do in fact succeed, at least to some extent.

This is very very different from "had to retract all his melanoma papers about 20 years ago", which is a accusation of fraud.

"To back up your assertion you then provide a citation which simply demonstrates that the research team in question is having difficulty solving the technical aspects of their proposed therapeutic approach. In the citation provided they do in fact succeed, at least to some extent. "

I give up. I have tried to treat you as reasonable, although a bit hysterical in some statements. It is apparent that others, who refer to you as a troll, are correct.

Don Morton had to retract all his reports from the first 20 years of his work. He is still trying to prove the concept was reasonable. I wish him luck.

You might find this discussion helpful but I doubt it. You seem very credulous to some and a bit dense to me.

Michael K said...Don Morton had to retract all his reports from the first 20 years of his work.

Do you understand what the term 'retract' means? If you do then it should be possible to provide multiple links to journals in which the papers where first published with published statements retracting those papers.

Although you resort to petty insults directed against me the problem here is that you have repeatedly committed professional slander against someone who is apparently well regarded in his profession. You need to either back this up or lose all credibility. This appears to be a reasonably unbiased assessment of his research career. The sentinel node procedure is used very broadly in a breast and skin cancer and is considered a significant improvement in terms of post-operative complications. The tumor vaccine has had limited clinical success but remains a viable research option, with the company started by Morton, after one takeover, recently having been bought out by Amgen.